DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 84066--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wolves v Man City: Chris Kavanagh
DIR By: Whistleblower
Date: October 20, 2024, 10:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I entirely agree that at the moment Stones headed the ball,
interference with the keeper was not happening but I do believe
the goalkeeper, while the ball was coming in from the corner,
had his movement impeded.
No doubt I shall be in the minority in this view but I hold to
it.
#Post#: 84068--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wolves v Man City: Chris Kavanagh
DIR By: Whistleblower
Date: October 20, 2024, 10:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If impeding the goalkeeper's movement is not foul play then so
be it, the goal is rightly awarded.
#Post#: 84070--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wolves v Man City: Chris Kavanagh
DIR By: carrowman
Date: October 20, 2024, 10:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Whistleblower link ---
>
> I entirely agree that at the moment Stones headed the ball,
interference with the keeper was not happening but I do believe
the goalkeeper, while the ball was coming in from the corner,
had his movement impeded.
>
> No doubt I shall be in the minority in this view but I hold to
it.
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm happy to be in the minority with you. Sa in my opinion was
denied an opportunity to go for the ball.
#Post#: 84071--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wolves v Man City: Chris Kavanagh
DIR By: Midlander
Date: October 20, 2024, 10:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Whistleblower link ---
>
> When the ball leaves the quadrant it is live and there was
interference with the goal keeper while the ball was moving,
therefore why wasn't a free kick to the defence be awarded for
goal keeper interference ? The offside business is a red
herring. If I was a Wolves supporter I would feel very aggrieved
but then debatable decisions always seem to be given to the top
clubs.
>
--- End Quote ---
Because it quite simply is not a foul.
If we give a FK for that level of contact then by the same
measuring stick we would be giving penalty kicks for that. is
that really where you would have the game go??
Let’s just make football non-contact and have done with it. That
way we all know where we stand right……….
🤷🏼‍♂️
#Post#: 84072--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wolves v Man City: Chris Kavanagh
DIR By: Whistleblower
Date: October 20, 2024, 10:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: carrowman link ---
>
> [quote author=Whistleblower link=topic=6361.msg84066#msg84066
date=1729438283]
> I entirely agree that at the moment Stones headed the ball,
interference with the keeper was not happening but I do believe
the goalkeeper, while the ball was coming in from the corner,
had his movement impeded.
>
> No doubt I shall be in the minority in this view but I hold to
it.
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm happy to be in the minority with you. Sa in my opinion was
denied an opportunity to go for the ball.
[/quote]
Remarkable and commendable convergence by East Anglian rivals.
😇
#Post#: 84073--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wolves v Man City: Chris Kavanagh
DIR By: ARF
Date: October 20, 2024, 10:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://x.com/Nordqvist80/status/1848016744725582252?t=a85QGkvru0pgUskE5c2wrg&s=19
Not a foul or an offside offence IMO. Not controversial in the
slightest.
#Post#: 84089--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wolves v Man City: Chris Kavanagh
DIR By: Claretman
Date: October 20, 2024, 2:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Midlander link ---
>
> [quote author=Whistleblower link=topic=6361.msg84063#msg84063
date=1729437696]
> When the ball leaves the quadrant it is live and there was
interference with the goal keeper while the ball was moving,
therefore why wasn't a free kick to the defence be awarded for
goal keeper interference ? The offside business is a red
herring. If I was a Wolves supporter I would feel very aggrieved
but then debatable decisions always seem to be given to the top
clubs.
>
--- End Quote ---
Because it quite simply is not a foul.
If we give a FK for that level of contact then by the same
measuring stick we would be giving penalty kicks for that. is
that really where you would have the game go??
Let’s just make football non-contact and have done with it. That
way we all know where we stand right……….
🤷🏼‍♂️
[/quote]
We might just as well stop awarding corners and skip that bit,
award a defence free kick each time instead to save time.
There have been far worse incidents in the penalty area this
weekend from corner kicks that should have been penalised and
gone unpunished.
#Post#: 84110--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wolves v Man City: Chris Kavanagh
DIR By: DublinRef
Date: October 21, 2024, 6:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Whistleblower link ---
>
> I entirely agree that at the moment Stones headed the ball,
interference with the keeper was not happening but I do believe
the goalkeeper, while the ball was coming in from the corner,
had his movement impeded.
>
> No doubt I shall be in the minority in this view but I hold to
it.
>
--- End Quote ---
I initially agreed with this view as well but the counter point
on whether I would want a penalty awarded the other way won the
argument for me, so seeing as the offside call to me isn’t
really very controversial I feel the officials got it right.
I also think IMHO the 4th official is still putting up with too
much abuse and dissent, I think a re doubling of efforts would
be helpful there.
#Post#: 84153--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wolves v Man City: Chris Kavanagh
DIR By: Microscopist
Date: October 22, 2024, 3:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DublinRef link ---
>
> [quote author=Whistleblower link=topic=6361.msg84066#msg84066
date=1729438283]
> I entirely agree that at the moment Stones headed the ball,
interference with the keeper was not happening but I do believe
the goalkeeper, while the ball was coming in from the corner,
had his movement impeded.
>
> No doubt I shall be in the minority in this view but I hold to
it.
>
--- End Quote ---
I initially agreed with this view as well but the counter point
on whether I would want a penalty awarded the other way won the
argument for me, so seeing as the offside call to me isn’t
really very controversial I feel the officials got it right.
I also think IMHO the 4th official is still putting up with too
much abuse and dissent, I think a re doubling of efforts would
be helpful there.
[/quote]
Just so, if that was a foul by Silva then nearly every corner
would result in either a penalty or defensive free kick
depending on which the referee happened to see first. However,
some teams have got blocking the goalkeeper off to a fine art.
Take as an example Arsenal's second goal in the recent City
Arsenal game.
]
HTML https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=431097160007706&set=pcb.431097226674366
As the kick was taken the two Arsenal players were about 3-4
yards away from Ederson and made synchronised runs to be one
either side of Ederson and ultimately knocking him to the ground
as the header by Gabriel was made. Referee Oliver and VAR
Brooks saw nothing wrong with this and there was little comment
on it, even with a couple of pages on the match here on RTR.
Wherefore wert thou all?
#Post#: 84176--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wolves v Man City: Chris Kavanagh
DIR By: Whistleblower
Date: October 22, 2024, 7:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Microscopist link ---
>
> [quote author=DublinRef link=topic=6361.msg84110#msg84110
date=1729510687]
> [quote author=Whistleblower link=topic=6361.msg84066#msg84066
date=1729438283]
> I entirely agree that at the moment Stones headed the ball,
interference with the keeper was not happening but I do believe
the goalkeeper, while the ball was coming in from the corner,
had his movement impeded.
>
> No doubt I shall be in the minority in this view but I hold to
it.
>
--- End Quote ---
I initially agreed with this view as well but the counter point
on whether I would want a penalty awarded the other way won the
argument for me, so seeing as the offside call to me isn’t
really very controversial I feel the officials got it right.
I also think IMHO the 4th official is still putting up with too
much abuse and dissent, I think a re doubling of efforts would
be helpful there.
[/quote]
Just so, if that was a foul by Silva then nearly every corner
would result in either a penalty or defensive free kick
depending on which the referee happened to see first. However,
some teams have got blocking the goalkeeper off to a fine art.
Take as an example Arsenal's second goal in the recent City
Arsenal game.
]
HTML https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=431097160007706&set=pcb.431097226674366
As the kick was taken the two Arsenal players were about 3-4
yards away from Ederson and made synchronised runs to be one
either side of Ederson and ultimately knocking him to the ground
as the header by Gabriel was made. Referee Oliver and VAR
Brooks saw nothing wrong with this and there was little comment
on it, even with a couple of pages on the match here on RTR.
Wherefore wert thou all?
[/quote]
I answereth only for my own self; not watching it live on Mr
Baird's invention and therefore not in a position to pass
comment.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page